Wednesday, August 31, 2011

therefor jesus
August 31, 2011 at 7:56 pm

Nick, you have nothing but severely distorted evidence, dogmatism, and insult to make your case (not to mention a pompous attitude covering your ignorance, in the place of genuine wisdom that would come from a humble attitude in the face of such unparalleled complexity of information processing in life! ..............


And of course you IDiots NEVER use "severely distorted evidence, dogmatism, and insult to make your case (not to mention a pompous attitude covering your ignorance", do you?

About the uncommonly dense thread on ATBC

Some of you in that thread are starting to sound as paranoid and hypocritical as gordo and his IDiot comrades. Any information or photos I post here about the IDiots are either something I found at a public place on the web or what someone else found at a public place on the web. I don't have spies looking through their windows.

You people have been ridiculing IDiots for years, and posting pictures of them, but for some strange reason some of you have a problem with me doing the same thing. I asked for information or pictures simply because I might not know where to look for them on the web, and other people might have something interesting that I may never find. You guys share information and photos, don't you? It isn't like you all found everything you've ever written on ATBC or elsewhere, and every photo you've ever posted on ATBC or elsewhere, all by yourself, is it?

People like gordon e. mullings (and most or all of the other IDiots) have no qualms about publicizing whatever they can find about their 'opponents'. They even make up massive lies just to accuse and demonize anyone they feel like accusing and demonizing. Why the fuck should I refrain from publicizing the truth about them, no matter what it is?? They make THEMSELVES fair game.

UD and gordo hate the truth

gordo brought up the lunatic (Breivik) who killed a lot of people in Norway, and of course gordo did it in such a way as to demonize anyone (especially me) who doesn't kiss his sanctimonious ass. dmullenix responded (see below) but now his response has been deleted by a moderator at UD (no doubt at gordo's demand or by gordo himself). Lying and cover-ups on UD are just fine but the truth and reasonable questions are a definite no-no.

Here it is:

Regarding Breivik. Is reminding us of a right-wing Christian who murdered five dozen liberal teenagers supposed to intimidate me?

You’re from Jamaica originally, aren’t you? I vacationed in Ocho Rios a couple of decades ago and I remember the guide proudly telling us that Jamaica has more churches per capita than any other country in the world. Is this true?

I also noticed that I couldn’t find a newspaper at the hotel we stayed at and an employee told me that the manager didn’t allow them to be sold there. When I found one downtown, I saw why.

Would you like to comment on the murder rates for ultra-Christian Jamaica, excessively Christian America and Breivik’s relatively non-Christian Norway?

According to

the murder rates per 100,000 for the three countries are:

Jamaica 60 per 100,000

US 5.0 per 100,000

Norway 0.6 per 100,000

Do you have any explanation for why ultra-religious Jamaica’s murder rate is 12 times higher than merely super religious America’s which in turn is 8 times higher than nearly atheistic Norway’s?

I doubt if it’s guns. They’re nearly totally illegal in Jamaica and the US and Norway are both awash in firearms. I doubt it it’s poverty – Norway and America are about tied here. I doubt if it’s language or legal traditions. Jamaica and America are both scions of Great Britain.

What differences are there between these three countries aside from their religiosity.

I’m going to stop now before you heed the command of Jesus as quoted in Luke 19:27 and get a gun and come looking for me, but before I do I want to say that nobody on this blog whines about “oil of ad hominems”, “strawmen caricatures”, “distractive red herrings”, “willful misrepresentation, hostility and target-painting “ and “incendiary rhetoric” as much as you do and nobody holds a candle to you when it comes to indulging in those practices.

F/N Luke 19:27 “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”


dmullenix did not post the picture of gordo. I did.

Tuesday, August 30, 2011


gordon e. mullings (kairosfocus) liar-for-god says:

"In my case, some one out there is targetting me, is falsely accusing me of child abuse, is saying menacingly “we know you, we know where you are, we know those you care for,” and is now backing this up by posting pictures — talk about targetting!

And, with further false accusations.

Someone who was coddled at MF’s site, and not restrained before he went utterly out of control.

At the same time, we see outright declarations that the God of the Bible is a moral monster, and those who follow him are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked would-be tyrannical Christo-fascist theocrats and child abusers.

Plainly, some one out there — Dawkins and ilk — thinks he can smear people and build up morally driven rage against them by appealing to precisely the moral absolutes that he denies when they would cut in ways that he does not want.

The hypocrisy would be amusingly revealing, if it were not so dangerous. For that sort of incendiary language is feeding the fever swamps that allow the unhinged to tank up on rage and a sense of permission to act out their hostility on the scapegoated.

The end of such a pattern is predictable on all too much history: violence and blood as ruthless nihilist factions vie for power, and worse, if they gain it.

There is a name for a world like that, where each does as he pleases so long as he thinks he is powerful enough to get away with it, regardless of the blatant inconsistency.


Just ask the ghosts of 100 million victims of evolutionary materialist tyrannies over the past 100 years.

In short, we have again reached reductio ad absurdum and bankruptcy for evolutionary materialism, this time on the moral side.

Let us take grim warning, if we care for our civilisation; or even just our families and communities.


From here:


Well, there he goes again, attributing words to me that I never said, and this time he's using quote marks again.

Today (and usually) it's: “we know you, we know where you are, we know those you care for,”
(sometimes in quotes, sometimes in italics)

The other day it was: we know you, we know where you are, we think we know your family (in italics)

Liars can never keep their stories straight, and gordon e. mullings is a blatant, willful liar. I've never said those words to him and he knows it. Frankly, it amazes me that someone like gordo, who goes on and on and on about morality, could be such an amoral/immoral liar and expect to get away with it. He obviously thinks that he doesn't have to abide by the morals that he preaches about so much. That's mighty 'christian' of him.

It's also obvious that gordo really has a problem with Mark Frank, even though Mark has nothing to do with what I say or do and is not responsible for me in any way. Since gordo doesn't have the guts to come here and face me, he instead goes after Mark, and of course gordo does it behind the chicken-shit protective wall at UD. Oh, by the way, I wasn't "coddled" at Mark Frank's blog. That's just another lie from gordo. In fact, Mark asked me to post elsewhere and I have been doing so since.

"At the same time, we see outright declarations that the God of the Bible is a moral monster, and those who follow him are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked would-be tyrannical Christo-fascist theocrats and child abusers."

That "declaration" is accurate.

"Plainly, some one out there — Dawkins and ilk — thinks he can smear people and build up morally driven rage against them by appealing to precisely the moral absolutes that he denies when they would cut in ways that he does not want."

That makes it sound as though I'm Dawkins. I'm not. And it's gordo who thinks he can smear people and build up morally driven rage.... blah blah blah. What a two-faced blowhard he is.

gordo, all of your accusations apply precisely to you. You are exactly what you condemn. You are just like your chosen god; a despicable monster. No wonder you worship him.


Psst, gordo, are you there?

Quit blaming MarkF for things that he has absolutely nothing to do with. He's not my keeper and is not responsible for what I say or do.

Why don't you come here and face me gordo? Why don't you take up your complaints about me, with me? Why don't you quit hiding at UD and show me some of that bydand stuff? Why don't you have the guts to step out of the UD echo chamber? Why are you such a sniveling coward? Didn't your god give you any courage? What are you afraid of? The only person stopping you is you.

I was banned from UD even though I was civil when posting there, and I have submitted posts several times at your site but you never publish them. I'm not afraid of you or anyone else, gordo. Why are you and most of your IDiot comrades so afraid to speak directly to your opponents, where you don't have the power of blocking and banning?

Yeah, he's not religious (LMAO)
August 30, 2011 at 5:19 am


What part of the following don’t YOU understand:

The God of Islam is the God of Abraham. Abraham is the father of Ishmael, his first born son and Ishmael is the father of Islam.

Then there is Isaac, Abraham’s second son, who is the father of Judaism.

The God of Abraham is the God of Ishmael, is the God of Isaac, is the God of Islam and is the God of Judaism, which by extension means it is the God of Christianity.

That is what the study of theologians and historians say.


I thought you said you aren't religious? Why do you care so much about any of that shit if you're not religious? It's all fairy tales joe-boi. None of it matters. You're arguing about make-believe bullshit.

joe g, the lying muslim creationist

August 30, 2011 at 5:23 am

I am NOT religious. If the Bible, Qu’ran, and every other reliious text were refuted today I would not be bothered.

I have looked around enough to understand there isn’t any ONE religion who “has it right”- but that is another story…


Liar. You describe yourself as a muslim.

gordo is sinking deeper and deeper into insanity


That guy is NUTS!

Monday, August 29, 2011

Hey bantay

August 29, 2011 at 11:04 am

It looks like somebody we know is hunting for photos of Kairosfocus, I and others.

Here is the quote from the blog entry

“Does anyone have a picture of kairosfocus?
AKA gordon e. mullings of Montserrat. I’d really like to find pictures of him.

Also, clive hayden, uprightbiped, joseph (joe g), vjtorley, jack cole, ilion without his fingers glued to his forehead, cannuckianyankee, lamarck, meleagar, stephenb, or bantay. I may think of others later.

Any links to photos of them would be appreciated.”



And your point is?

The lies keep piling up

Check out this thread:


Man oh man, gordo sure does like to lie and exaggerate. He's the one who is likely to go on a murderous rampage. He's the one who makes shit up about targets on backs, etc:

"This is the same who was warned that he has been painting targets on the backs of my family [as in we know you, we know where you are, we think we know your family], and was formally and publicly asked to cease and desist.

This is clear cyber harassment and will be treated as such."

Notice that he changed the wording of the bullshit in italics from the wording he has used before. gordo is a lying, amoral lunatic. He makes it look like I've said those things to him and he even used quote marks before. I can't help but wonder what other words he's going to accuse me of saying. When I've challenged him to actually post my alleged threats he always runs away from it. Isn't that revealing?

It's hilarious that he bluffs and blusters about "cyber harassment and will be treated as such". Hey gordo, do you really believe that I'm intimidated and worried about your empty, childish, dishonest posturing? I know that you're full of shit and so do you, and that's why you can't and won't do a thing about me, except to keep lying about me. Your play-acting role as a 'victim' of alleged harassment and alleged murderous threats is really pathetic. You seem to have convinced a few of your IDiotic comrades but I doubt that you're fooling anyone with a clue.

You're really off the deep end gordo and you should seek out competent mental help, and the sooner the better. You should also live up to all of your blather about morality and quit lying about me or anyone else. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

You should also stop accusing others of things that you're doing, and have been doing for a long time. Your hypocrisy is gargantuan.

Take a look.... the uncommon descent home page. Nope, you sure won't find anything about politics or religion there. It's all science! And of course it's all science and positive evidence for ID coming straight from the extensive world wide ID laboratories and field research teams that are staffed by the best minds on Earth!

Hey eric!

Eric Holloway
August 28, 2011 at 12:26 pm

Please post here any areas where you’d be interested to see ID applied. I have a few more in mind, but would also like to motivate my readers to start expanding their ID horizons. If you post a topic here I very well may touch on it in my next article.


How about applying ID tests (what tests?) to something in nature? Surely someone as brilliant as you (ha ha) can calculate the CSI, FSCI, FSCO/I, specified complexity, irreducible complexity, and/or all the other ID talking points in something found in nature? Come on eric, let's see you do it!

Here are even more suggestions (See my previous posts about you):

a batholith
a comet
a human toenail
a chimp toenail
a drop of sulphuric acid
the Sun
an Aardvark
a human nose hair
a proton
a super nova
a day old rabbit
a waterfall
a wild rose bush
a gust of wind
a rainbow
a tadpole
a week old gorilla fetus
Carlsbad Caverns
a mushroom
a clap of thunder
brain cancer
a moth
and a wisdom tooth


August 29, 2011 at 5:19 am

Attack ID with your ignorance all you want it still doesn’t provide positive evidence for your position.


Yeah, it isn't like you IDiots ever attack science and especially the ToE with your ignorance, eh joe-boi?

And your positive evidence for ID is?

Yeah, let's see it!

Eric Holloway
August 28, 2011 at 10:35 pm

I’ve used his CSI metric to empirically differentiate my behavior from that of AIs, so I wouldn’t consider it a specious metric. Yes, it is often difficult to apply, but that is more a problem of practice than a problem with the metric itself.

If you are interested in my application of CSI, let me know. My work currently needs some cleaning up, but if enough people show interest I will indeed clean it up and post it at some point.

Thanks for the continued exchange, so far it is useful,


And while you're at it, let's see you calculate the so-called "CSI" in a frog, a tree, a male pig's left nut, the moon, a teaspoon of sea water, and a quark. After all, you wouldn't want anyone to think that "CSI" is a "specious metric", would you?

Sunday, August 28, 2011

In action? That's a laugh!

August 28, 2011 at 7:12 pm

Hi Eric,

“So, one interesting application of Dembski’s CSI metric would be to measure the amount of CSI being produced in the market. As long as a market segment demonstrated CSI production, we could invest in said market with a fair amount of confidence. But, our confidence should plummet if we noticed CSI drop off.”

This does sound like an interesting exercise. Could this be set up as an experiment? It could be a good way of demonstrating CSI in action.

From here:


Yeah, eric holloway, AKA dipshit-in-diapers, let's see you or any other IDiot "measure the amount of CSI being produced in the market".

Let's also see you or any other IDiot measure the so-called "CSI" in a banana, or a testicle, or earwax, or a bowel movement, or in your pea brain.

Friday, August 26, 2011

Speaking of wasted lives

Wasted Lives
August 26, 2011
Posted by GilDodgen under Intelligent Design

It is now clear that the two essential foundations of Darwinian speculation are in a state of complete evidential and combinatorial mathematical collapse.

The first foundation of Darwinian speculation is gradualism, which is nowhere to be found in the fossil record, unless one has an incredibly creative imagination and a propensity for making up unsubstantiated stories.

The second foundation of Darwinian speculation is that random errors can produce highly sophisticated computer code. This is transparently absurd and illogical.

It is really pathetic, when one thinks about it, that so many intellectual and investigative resources have been squandered on what is now known to be complete nonsense.

Many brilliant people, who could have done something productive and creative with their lives, have squandered their lives pursuing the phantom of Darwinian speculation. They’ve earned Ph.D.’s in something that never happened, and earn their salaries in academia “teaching” others to pursue a dead-end, archaic, 19th-century philosophy that has nothing to do with legitimate science.

From here:


That post may be the most transparently absurd and illogical, unsubstantiated, unsophisticated, non-intellectual, non-productive, non-creative, non-legitimately-scientific, non-essential, pathetic, delusional, arrogant, mind-bendingly stupid pile of shit that I've ever seen on UD.

gildo, your insanity knows no bounds.

steno, another poster boy for tard

In this post:
.. steno displays more of his stupidity and gullibility. I'm going to have some fun with a few of his comments:

"Supporters of evolution love the ‘big story’, or the ‘just so’ stories, but often skim over the detail leaving that to our imagination."

Your beliefs are totally in your imagination. And where is the "detail" in the so-called 'ID theory/inference'?

"Many of us find this unsatisfactory and we think scientists should pick through the complex detail if it is to be a genuine science."

What the fuck do you think scientists are doing, if not looking for and "pick(ing) through the complex detail"? Do you think they're just sitting around making shit up like you dimwitted religious zombies do? What "genuine science" are any of you IDiots doing?

"On this basis I wonder why I should give up the biblical ‘big story’ when such weak arguments in science are presented by evolutionists."

Yeah, why should you give up the total bullshit, and weak arguments (actually fairy tales) in the bible? Yep, the bible is just a big (fictional) story.

"The response as Venema intimates is that sceptics are not sufficiently gifted intellectually to understand evolution, and somehow evolution believers live at a higher level of thinking."

Well, if that's the intimation, it's correct.

"But instead, we have worked out that the reason why we don’t understand how evolution works is because it is logically incoherent at many levels."

See, you just proved my comment above. You admit that you don't understand how evolution works. And maybe you can tell me what is logical and coherent about believing in your ridiculous, imaginary god and associated fairy tales?

"For instance, evolution is based upon weak analogies (animal A looks like animal B)..."

Uh, no. That is not what "evolution" is based on. It's also not what evolutionary theory is based on.

"...whereas design relies upon univocal thinking from the doctrine of the Imago Dei;"

What the fuck does that nonsense mean?

"..Evolutionary thought also often uses self-evidencing explanations, what we might loosely call circular reasoning."

That's pretty funny coming from a religious wacko like you. All you godbots ever do is go around in circles. Crazy circles.


My responses are in bold type.

August 26, 2011 at 5:10 am

“Most religions are false. So what is different about your religion that makes you sure yours is true?”

I think this is a great question. I think the main point is verification of the claims of any proposed religion or God that directly display it as potentially true, i.e., miracles (for if there is no miraculous what basis is there to claim that something is in any degree supernatural?). To use credibility/verifiability of miracle claims would, I believe, rule out the majority of candidate religions/Gods.

So, brent, exactly how can miracles or the claims of any proposed religion or God be directly displayed and verified?

And if something is verified and directly displayed, why would it then just be "potentially true"?

Further, if we could define God as a maximally great being with attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence, etc., it would rule out almost all other candidates (and shouldn’t that, by definition, be what we mean when we say “God”? Otherwise we should use another word and keep looking for the real God).

Are you saying that how a god is defined by humans is the determining factor of whether it is real or not?

vjtorley, nuts, nuts, and more nuts (and I don't mean the edible kind)


Hey vince, don't you have more productive things to do than writing thousands of words about imaginary gods, none of which actually ever existed? You spew all of your insane bullshit as though it actually means something. You crazily assert that the christian/abrahamic god is the real deal and that 'logic' says so. You also try to make it sound as though the christian/abrahamic god is real because a lot of people believe in that god. Appeals to popularity? Should I point out how popular Michael Jackson is, or U2, or Elvis Presley, or Brad Pitt, or Queen Elizabeth, or Ronald McDonald, or Barney The Dinosaur, or Katy Perry, or Lady Gaga, or Buddha, or Krishna, or Guan Yu, or Kumari?

You're nuts vince. Completely and totally nuts. You believe in ridiculous fairy tales and worship a figment of some ancient goat herder's imagination. You might as well believe in and worship Little Red Riding Hood, or Bugs Bunny, or Biggy Rat and Itchy Brother. There's as much evidence for them or any other cartoon/fairy tale character as there is for your chosen god, or any other imaginary god. All gods are imaginary, and are the product of human fears, arrogance, and ignorance.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Yes, your majesty! (LMAO)

August 24, 2011 at 9:25 am

F/N: I add that I am a lot less than comfortable with someone based in one country seeking to directly influence the course of the politics in another country, much less on so slipshod a base as that if you disagree with my view, you are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked; which he seems to be now extending to the US public as a whole, saving of course the minority who agree with him.


The "he" gordo is referring to is Richard Dawkins. gordo lives on Montserrat, an island in the Caribbean. gordo wants (and tries) to influence politics, and every other aspect of everyone's life, throughout the entire world, and the universe.

gordo says: "Nationhood under Christ is therefore a key — but too often neglected — aspect of our discipling message and mandate. Paul stressed this in speaking to the leaders of Athens — the wellspring of the Western intellectual, artistic and democratic traditions — about nationhood under God: "From one man [God] made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times — kairous — set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." [Acts 17:26 - 27.] In short, God created nationhood to foster godliness, and so controls critical times and places in the lives of nations that men are shaken from complacency and self-satisfaction or from apathy and hopelessness, thus are opened to the gospel. Into that ferment, he sends his people with the gospel, as his body, "the fulness of him who fills everything in every way," able to transform and bless the whole community by Christ's resurrection power!"

And: "Therefore, let us heed Paul's "everything," [Eph. 1:23] and Jesus' "make disciples of all nations [ethnoi: i.e. people-groups, with their characteristics: languages, histories, cultures, aspirations] . . . baptising . . . and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" [Mt. 28:19]. In short, we should view our mandate as calling us to systematically disciple the nations under Jesus' Lordship, in the power of his Spirit, evangelising, baptising, nurturing and training them to follow his commands and example, progressively filling all of life — family, individuality and sexuality, education, music, entertainment, sports, the arts, "culture," business, the media, government, politics, peoplehood/nationhood . . . EVERY-thing — with his fulness. As a direct result, we must integrate and articulate what we all too often compartmentalise and contrast -- sometimes, even dismiss -- as "Evangelism," "Discipling," "Family Ministry," "Social Action," "Issues," "Business," "The Arts," "Political Involvement," and so on."

And: "Our Mandate therefore goes far beyond winning converts who mainly support "our" church meetings and programmes by attendance, praying for us and opening their wallets! Instead, we are called to walk under a vision to fill "all things" with Christ, so that a Christocentric dynamic of unity and integration will spread through both church and culture, progressively filling every activity, relationship, context and involvement in our communities -- and world -- with Christ."

From here:

There's much more about gordo's insane desire (and plan) to rule the world and the universe on that page and many others at gordo's site.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

IDiots condemning their own theory/inference

My comments are in bold type.

First, based on what IDiots demand from science and on what they claim their own 'theory/inference' can do (calculate probabilities, CSI, etc.), Nick Matzke asks a perfectly reasonable question:

August 23, 2011 at 2:26 pm

So, JonathanM — what’s the probability of the Grand Canyon? Go on, calculate it, if you think evolutionists should do such calculations for complex biological systems, it ought to be easy for you to do it for the Grand Canyon.

Then joe-boi steps in and trashes his own 'theory/inference':

August 23, 2011 at 2:38 pm

We don’t care about calculations NickMatzke_UD. We care about evidence. And your position seems to be lacking in that respect.

As for the Grand Canyon, the probability of it forming from rain falling in Australia, is zero. :cool:

And then gordo comes along and twists things around (as usual), and accuses Nick (and evolutionary theory) of a "paucity" of "actual evidence", even though gordo and his IDiotic comrades have absolutely NO actual or observational evidence to support any of their ID/creation claims!

August 23, 2011 at 2:39 pm

This sort of challenge simply reveals the paucity of your actual evidence.

If you actually had any serious observational evidence for body plan origins by chance variation and differential survival of unicellular organisms several hundred mn ya, you would be shouting from the housetops.

Thanks for inadvertently letting us know how thin your case is.

That’s a red herring FYI.


gordo and joe-boi, your remarks really show just how empty the so-called 'ID theory/inference' is, and how empty your heads are.

Where's YOUR actual, observational, scientifically testable evidence for ID? And where are all those accurate, scientifically testable calculations that you say ID can do?

Remember your words, joe-boi:
"If it is untestable, scientifically, is it science?"

Right back at you joe-boi

August 23, 2011 at 7:46 am


Gil, are you saying that the vast numbers of scientists who do accept the Darwinian theory of evolution are “not involved in real science”?

If it is untestable, scientifically, is it science?

Dr Behe asked:

Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?

We are still waiting for an answer…


Hey joe-boi, is the so-called 'ID theory/inference' NOT science, if it is untestable, scientifically? It must be, since it is untestable, scientifically. I'm glad that's settled.

Scientists, and other rational people, are still waiting for something in the 'ID theory/inference' that is actually scientifically testable.

An example of gordo's crazy bullshit

August 21, 2011 at 2:11 pm

From just life it is possible to infer design, but not the particular designer of life. (It is possible that a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond where Venter et al are today, could do what we see on earth.) But then put that world of life on a planet in a cosmos that is fine tuned for life and a very much bigger picture emerges.

August 22, 2011 at 11:25 am

KF, If “From just first life it is possible to infer design, but not the particular designer of life.”

Please enlighten why not possible to ‘infer’ the particular designer of life!?

August 22, 2011 at 1:29 pm


Just from the functionally specific complex information and related organisation based on molecular nanomachines like DNA, RNA, proteins, enzymes, ribosomes etc in observed life, we may infer to much the same structures in the first cell based life. If that life must both metabolise and self-replicate using digital stored info. (Just ATP Synthase alone is enough to make the point: the energy battery molecule factory, a rotary robot factory spinning at 1,000′s of rev pm and spitting out 3 ATPs per cycle! Cyanide kills in seconds by cutting off the effect of ATP.)

The best explanation for that — on many grounds not to be elaborated just now [cf link for starters] — that FSCO/I is best explained on design.

However, the design of life itself, standing by itself, is sufficiently [note the logical subtlety] accounted for on say a molecular nanotechnology lab some generations beyond Craig Venter’s recent efforts. Mycoplasma laboratorium is a proof of concept of intelligent design of life in the lab, at least as a prelim stage.

It is when we look at the environments of life, the chemistry involved and he physics behind a cosmos in which you have such habitable zone planets in solar systems and galaxies of the right type, with the proper elements in required abundance, etc etc, that we see that the observed COSMOS is fine tuned for such C-chemistry, cell based life that uses an aqueous medium.

Worse [for our would-be materialist], that cosmos credibly had a beginning, so it is a contingent being.

Even through multiverse speculations [strictly, philosophy not science as there are no observations . . . never mind Mr Hawking et al!] that requires, logically, a necessary being, one capable of forming a cosmos, with the required fine tuning for life. Such a NB (per simple logic) has no external necessary causal factors, and so if it exists it always existed and can never cease from existing, there is nothing to turn it off so to speak. So a serious candidate NB is either impossible [like 2 + 2 = 5], or it is eternally existent in all possible worlds [like 2 + 3 = 5]!

If possible, then actual.

An eternal, massively powerful being with the knowledge, skill and power to be architect and builder of the observed cosmos.

Sounds familiar?

An observed cosmos fine tuned for C-chemistry cell based life [observed forms of which reflect massive evidence of design], some of which happens to be intelligent and under moral government. As the hot parallel threads show — and note we are clearly discussing world view issues not science at this point, the only way that ought can be grounded is if there is a foundational IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT.

The ONLY serious candidate for that — you should see the twists and turns to avoid acknowledging this — is an inherently good, creator God.

So, pull the strands together and braid ‘em into a rope: a necessary being, with the power and ability to create a cosmos fine tuned for life, which has in it intelligent, and credibly designed life that is morally governed, requiring an inherently good Creator God to order such a universe.

Sounds familiar?

It should.

Now, go back through. Have we at any point cited or based our inferences on anything beyond logic and observation, per the approach of inference to best explanation?


In particular you will find nowhere i this post a citation or inference form the text of any religious work as such.

And BTW, this is pretty much where Plato ended up in The Laws, Bk X, at the end of his life, c 360 BC.

Let’s clip:


>> Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second.

[[ . . . .]

Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it?

Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life?

Ath. I do.

Cle. Certainly we should.

Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life?

[[ . . . . ]

Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul?

Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things?

Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things.

Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer?

Cle. Exactly.

Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler?

[[ . . . . ]

Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.] >>

Newton, in his General Scholium to Principia, says much the same.

No prizes for guessing why The Laws Bk X is as rare as hen’s teeth in general discussions or what the Greek Philosophers thought!

So, the point is the case is a cumulative one, like a natural rope. Little fibres are twisted together to form strands, and then we counter twist and re twist to gradually build up a long strong rope.

And, if you imagine that by pulling a single fibre and saying that’s weak you can dismiss the strength of the whole rope, you have just committed a blatant fallacy of composition.



So, gordo says: "From just life it is possible to infer design, but not the particular designer of life." and then Zoe asks: "Please enlighten why not possible to ‘infer’ the particular designer of life!?" and then just look at the contradictory, convoluted gobbledegook that gordo spewed. What a fucking mess of bullshit. And, according to gordo, it's not possible to infer "the particular designer of life" but he infers "an inherently good Creator God" anyway! The christian god of course.

Want to see what gordo 'infers'? Go here and click on the blue links that run down the right hand side of the page:

eric holloway, expert in dipshitery

My responses are in bold type.

holloway ignorantly blurted:

"We’ve all noticed the ID critics all speak outside of their realm of expertise."

Of course you IDiots NEVER do that, do you?

"Biologists expound their expert opinions on mathematics, mathematicians make claims about computer science, and computer scientists think they know it all when it comes to evolution."

And you brain-dead religious morons expound your worthless opinions, and think you know it all, on evolution, evolutionary theory and every other aspect of science, history, philosophy, worldviews, morality, politics, and everything else in the universe.

"So, I thought, what happens if I only listen to their opinions in their actual realms of expertise?"

Well, you might learn something if you stop listening to delusional godbots who have no expertise in anything but promoting fairy tales.

"Here’s a mathematician, MarkCC, author of the blog “Good Math, Bad Math.”

What’s his expertise? Math."

Um, actually he has a PhD in computer science, and obviously has expertise in math too. From his profile: "Mark Chu-Carroll (aka MarkCC) is a PhD Computer Scientist, who works for Google as a Software Engineer. My professional interests center on programming languages and tools, and how to improve the languages and tools that are used for building complex software systems."

"What does he say about Dembski’s mathematics?

“he’s actually a decent mathematician”"

And what is Dembski's field of "expertise"? Evolutionary biology? Computer science? Paleontology? Physics? Geology? Astronomy? Or pimping shitty books and religious fairy tales?

"What is not his expertise? Computer science. What does he say in the domain of computer science?"

See above about MarkCC's profile, you IDiot.

holloway said a lot more bullshit but none of it is worth bothering with.

eric holloway
Still waiting for puberty to kick in.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Completely fucking NUTS! (and all science so far)
August 22, 2011 at 3:09 am


It is actually worse than that.

The desperate resort to contain anarchy is well known: tyranny.

Indeed, that is the core principle of fascism — in the teeth of the unprecedented existential challenge, some core community identity group turns to a political messiah, the great man who can rescue us from utter chaos, and who therefore has a right to be a nietzschean superman, above morality; or as Schaeffer pointed out, an oligarchy could emerge, or we could even see the shadowy tyranny of those who manipulate the public to get the magic 51% vote.

And such a tyranny by the individual, the group and/or the shadowy manipulators in the hands of the amoral or nihilistic, is a road to a new dark age.

Our civilisation is in mortal danger.



August 22, 2011 at 3:26 am


The truly self-evident will be true, will be necessarily true, and its denial will lead to patent absurdities.

There are indeed self-evident moral truths, but the problem is that they are connected to the issues like: morality– oughtness — is real, so we live in a world where there is a foundational IS that grounds OUGHT.

There is only one serious candidate for that job.

But, so many are so desperate to avoid that implication, that they willingly embrace the absurd and deny that the absurd consequences and incoherences are just that, absurd and self-refuting. They deny and suppress the truth; soon, en-darkened in mind and benumbed in conscience, they demand approval of error and wrong.

Resemblance to the current picture of our civilisation is no accident.

Nor is resemblance to what Plato described in The Laws, Bk X, or Paul in Rom 1 and Eph 4:17 – 19, or Jesus in Matt 6:22 – 23:

Matt 6:22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

Our civilisation is in mortal danger and many do not understand the conflagration that threatens, even as they resort to incendiary words and rhetoric.

We need to think again, and pull back now.

Or, we will face a horror and conflagration that we do not begin to conceive of in our worst nightmares.

Already, the fires have begun to spread.

Mortal danger!

Stop the madness!


Douse it now, before it burns totally beyond control!



August 22, 2011 at 3:51 am


Please read here, where the point is developed at 101 level.

In the most desperately compressed summary, I am here highlighting a point popularised by Hume, that there is a gap between commonly accepted IS-statements and premises, and OUGHT-obligations. He artfully expressed a surprise to see the usual IS suddenly giving rise to an ought and challenged the grounding of ought.

It turns out that here is a major gap between is and ought that needs to be bridged by any serious worldview that professes to guide individuals and communities.

To do that, we have to have a foundational is in the worldview that can bear the weight of ought. (Note, I did not say, the religious institution, or the school or the state, I said in the worldview.)

The worldview being pushed ever so hard in our day, evolutionary materialism, only permits matter, energy, space, time and things that draw on or depend on these materials and forces. It has no ability to bear the weight of ought. It is inherently amoral, and ends in the principle that Plato pointed out: the highest right is might. Which opens the gateway to factions, chaos and embracing tyranny to get enough stability to survive for now, i.e. as long as I am last in the line for the crocodile, it is enough. Maybe, something will happen . . .

The Euthyphro dilemma, ironically [it is usually presented to try to undermine any foundation of morality], shows the way forward. The necessary being and architect of the cosmos, who is also a loving, inherently good, caring Creator God, is an IS that can ground ought, on the strength of his goodness.

In that context, we are equally made in his image, as morally governed creatures, who thus have unalienable rights, that we are obligated to mutually respect. Life, liberty, reputation, etc. Governments are then instituted under that context, by consent of the community, to defend the civil peace of justice from those who would war against such rights, by robbery, fraud, invasion, etc. Governments that fail in this duty should be reformed or replaced. Hopefully by the peaceful means established in recent centuries, the ballot box.

But therein lieth the rub.

If a people can be systematically deceived and benumbed in conscience, they will vote in tyranny, usually in the form of charismatic, glib-tongued political messiahs who promise rescue from danger.

Hence the need for guaranteed protection of independent individuals and institutions that fearlessly stand for the truth and the right. And, the need to come down hard on those who would persecute, censor or slander such.

A difficult task, and by no means necessarily a sustainable one.


Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, and we have been asleep at the wheel.




August 22, 2011 at 4:51 am

Dr Liddle:

Divine moral law has been appealed to to justify all kinds of atrocities . . . . I’m still waiting for enlightenment as to how we are supposed to derive a system of ethics from religion in general, and Christianity in particular. How do you judge which commandments to take seriously and which to discard?

Why do you persist in a category confusion like that, not to mention an insistence on a barely veiled hostility?

Religions as such — being human, cultural institutions — no more than courts, governments or media houses and personalities or even university academic staff [even the ones dressed in the holy lab coat] — do not and cannot ground moral law, the truly binding OUGHT.

At best, they may teach it [or as the case of the troubles in Ireland vs Col 3:5 - 14 as pointed out shows, may also fail tot each it], but the premises of such law, the ISes that can ground OUGHT come under an entirely different head.

Even, our consciences are not enough, they — if properly trained and not benumbed — testify to that law implanted within. Which is a clue, this is a core part of our being.

As you have been forced at length to concede, evolutionary materialism and the like, have no basis in an IS that can ground OUGHT. So, such a worldview is morally bankrupt and absurd. It has no answer to the testimony of conscience within than to dismiss it as a delusion or manipulate it as a handy emotion to use to rhetorical advantage.

Such a bankrupt worldview cannot stand in a world where ought is patently real.

(Oh, how ironic then is the old — now plainly failed — appeal to the reality of evil to try to make the existence of God seem absurd. For, in it lurks the problem of good vs evil. If evil is real, so is good, and if good is real, then so is The Good. this of course is desperately compressed and can be elaborated.)

Let’s cut to the chase scene.

The only serious candidate for an IS capable of grounding OUGHT is the necessary being and architect of the cosmos, who is also a loving, just, inherently good, Creator, Lord and God.

Once such a being is on the table, it is immediately apparent that the old Euthyphro dilemma type argument [unsurprisingly -- it was properly directed at the old pagan gods who were precisely not as just described] misses the mark, as God is not separate form good, nor is good simply another world for his arbitrary decree. Good is at he core of his character and so the creation of which he is the architect builds in that moral character, in particular in creatures who are ensouled and enconscienced, made equally in his image. So, we have rights, a proper expectation that our dignity as being so made should be respected, starting with life, liberty, and reputation, etc. Governments — executive, judicial and legislative — in particular exist to protect those rights by guarding he civil peace of justice, and are subject to reform or replacement if they fail.

In that context, the core moral principles are respect for the good God and Lord of our nation and the world we live in, and respect for our fellow creatures made in his image, i.e love to God and love to neighbour as to self. Then we can jointly look to the stewardship of our common land, and world, etc.

None of this should be strange to us. Just, an astonishing hostility and pile of fallaciously dismissive rhetoric have been erected to hide it from view.

As to the idea that the first point of departure is that divine moral law can be appealed to to warrant abuse and atrocity, this misses several key issues, coming out the starting gate:

1: We are finite, fallible, morally fallen/struggling and too often ill-willed, so we must be open to correction and reform.

2: That takes care of most cases, i.e. abuse and fraud are not a reason to dismiss right use.

3: it also points to the failure of institutions charged to teach and carry out the right, i.e. it implicitly embeds the same error of institutional relativism corrected in this post above.

4: As was pointed out yesterday, the case of abuse that was flung out with quite incendiary words, husbands abusing wives, Eph 5 to use a specific case, makes it quite plain from context that authority never justifies abuse but instead calls for self-sacrifice to the point of laying down life, literally if necessary. Which is sensible and a case of a carefully balanced and reasonable teaching that can be wrenched out of context by the unstable and unlearned.

5: the same obviously extends to the courtroom or the government, as we can say see from the example of the apostles in dealing with the Sanhedrin in Ac 4 – 5: should we obey you, or God?

7: That is, human authority is under the higher law of our nature as made by the perfectly good and just. (Hence the rights to freedom of conscience, religion, prophetic correction, expression assembly, association etc.)

8: However, there are such things as evildoers, and so there are those who bear the solemn duty of the sword, to protect the civil peace of justice, from enemies foreign and domestic. Including he power of lower magistrates to act jointly with or for the people and interpose themselves in defence of the innocent, as say we may see in Daniel 1 – 4.

9: And that includes cases where some polities have made themselves plagues upon the earth. We may decry what say a Bomber Harris did, after the fact, but we must then answer, what is the reasonable and feasible means of containing a Nazi Germany and breaking its power? Or, what about an Imperial Germany? [It was failure to sufficiently break the latter that led to the rise of the former.]

10: In that context, I think we must realise that the private individual slapped on his cheek does not hold the same moral state as the policeman who bears the revolver and truncheon in defence of the community, or the soldier with the M-16 or AK 47, or the statesman who must decide whether to loose the power of armies, knowing full well the horrors that may obtain, as there may be worse horrors that are predictable if he does not.

11: So, while we do try to restrict wars and the like, we have to recognise that there are different circumstances, and that God as ultimate authority, is in a very different position than we are. Every death, every soul brought before him to account, is under his responsibility as ultimate Lord and Judge. And, we are in no position to push God into the dock and sit in judgement on him. But we are in every position to know and recognise that goodness is central to being God, so we can understand at least the rudimentary principles of what happens when God must judge nations, by consequences, by prophetic correction, by relevant degrees of destruction if they defy correction and become plagues upon the earth.

12: So, let us listen to Dembski’s remarks on Boethius:

In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” Boethius contrasts the problem that evil poses for theism with the problem that good poses for atheism. The problem of good does not receive nearly as much attention as the problem evil, but it is the more basic problem. That’s because evil always presupposes a good that has been subverted. All our words for evil make this plain: the New Testament word for sin (Greek hamartia) presupposes a target that’s been missed; deviation presupposes a way (Latin via) from which we’ve departed; injustice presupposes justice; etc. So let’s ask, who’s got the worse problem, the theist or the atheist? Start with the theist. God is the source of all being and purpose. Given God’s existence, what sense does it make to deny God’s goodness? None . . . . The problem of evil still confronts theists, though not as a logical or philosophical problem, but instead as a psychological and existential one [as was addressed above] . . . .

The problem of good as it faces the atheist is this: nature, which is nuts-and-bolts reality for the atheist, has no values and thus can offer no grounding for good and evil. As nineteenth century freethinker Robert Green Ingersoll used to say, “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments. There are consequences.” More recently, Richard Dawkins made the same point: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” ["Prepared Remarks for the Dembski-Hitchens Debate," Uncommon Descent Blog, Nov 22, 2010]



"Mortal danger!

Stop the madness!


Douse it now, before it burns totally beyond control!"

Will someone please throw a big bucket of water on gordo? If anyone is a mad, tyrannical, nazi-esque, fascistic, manipulative, nightmarish, evil, morally bankrupt, persecuting, censoring, slandering, en-darkened in mind and benumbed in conscience, burning out of control mortal danger and messiah-wannabe, it's religious lunatics like gordon e. mullings and his IDiot comrades.

And just think, all of that bullshit about morality is coming from a cretin who lies on a daily basis.

Oh, and what is that that the IDiots keep saying about ID not being a religious agenda? Well, there sure is a LOT of religion on UD; a site that claims it is "Serving the Intelligent Design Community". But of course ID is a "scientific" theory/inference and has nothing to do with a god or religious beliefs. Yeah, sure.

gordon e. mullings, maniacal shithead:


Hey dense, you need to take a good look at your own church (catholic) if you really want to see atrocious, amoral, and immoral behavior. Your church is the most vile cult the world has ever suffered. Anyone who is a member of or supports the catholic church in any way is a despicable piece of shit.

denyse o'leary, staunch supporter and member of a cult of murderers, culture destroyers, and child rapers:

Sunday, August 21, 2011

What a steaming pile of horse shit

Michael Servetus
August 21, 2011 at 7:58 pm

You can indeed blame immorality and troubles on atheism. I disagree with Elizabeth and others who try to argue one cannot. Talkers such as these will always point out the alleged bad behavior of various believers but fail to recongnize the obvious truth that people who behave in this way are behaving –as what?– when they do these things– UNBELIVERS. They may be called Christians or Catholics or whatever but the religion they sometimes profess to be a part of, denounces and rejects them and goes onto deny them the right to call themselves that which is sacred and clearly defined. It is thus very easy to see that when people are doing ungodly and unchristian things they are behaving like , well, atheists , as in without God.
So if you take a person that the bible or tradition itslef casts out as a hypocrite and unbeliever and insist defiantly as calling him or her a believer for purpose of slander, reproach and advantage in debate or argument, you behave dishonestly.
This is not the same as saying all atheists will act like ungodly devils because conversely the truth is, that when a atheists behaves morally he or she is not behaving consistently with thier worldview but are also behaving hypocritically in a sense and behaving as religous moral people who believe in unprovable absolutes and fixed oughts which according to their worldview have no basis in ultimate reality.


"You can indeed blame immorality and troubles on atheism."

You're full of it. You really ought to pay more attention to all of the atrocities committed by religious people, throughout the history of humans and religious beliefs, and still occurring on a regular basis now.

And why is it that you religious hypocritical IDiots never denounce the terrible things that religious people do? You always blame all of the bad shit on atheists, even when atheists have nothing at all to do with it! When am I going to see articles on UD that condemn religious monsters?

conceded? LMAO!

August 21, 2011 at 5:41 pm


It seems the key point has been conceded.

Game over, case closed.



You wish, gordo.

Why don't you try arguing your swill here, or on other sites where lots of people who disagree with you aren't blocked and banned? Then you can really see if anyone concedes. You DO want an "open and honest discussion", don't you? Your 'morals' require that, don't they? Oh wait, the "might" of the UD moderators "makes right", right? Stifling the opposition is the very thing that you and the other IDiots are always bitching about (when you're the opposition), yet you hypocrites are the ones who DO THAT VERY THING, and then you falsely and arrogantly claim victory when you know that most of the people who want to tell you that you're wrong aren't even allowed to speak on UD.

Come out from behind your protective wall at UD and see how far you get with your insane, cowardly, dishonest bullshit, gordo. Preaching to the choir doesn't accomplish squat. You're a gutless, lying crybaby with no morals at all.

August 21, 2011 at 12:00 pm

How do you distinguish the True God from False Gods if not subjectively?

The same way we discern any true statement from false ones – we use logic.



A wise man



In the post linked below, gildo says:

"Prager is a Jew, not a mindless evangelical Christian."

Hmm, it looks like gildo thinks that evangelical christians are "mindless". kairosfocus (gordon e. mullings) is an evangelical christian, and I'm sure that other IDiots on UD are too. I wonder if gordo or others are going to jump on gildo for that remark.

Of course gildo toots his own horn for the umpteenth time in that post too. We heard you the first time, and the second time, and the third time, and the fourth time, etc., etc., etc., gildo!

Here's the link:

michael flannery, malicious IDiot crybaby

Intelligent Design as a "Science Stopper"? Here's the Real Story
Michael Flannery
August 20, 2011 1:22 PM | Permalink

It is almost a mantra among Darwin's most devoted followers: Intelligent Design is a "science stopper." High Priestess of the Darwinian faithful Eugenie Scott insists that "Intelligent design is a science stopper. It stops science in its tracks because you stop looking. And I don't think that's a very good lesson to teach students" (see her comments in PBS Religion & Ethics).

What is a much worse lesson, however, is to teach students that the philosophical underpinnings of an argument can be sloughed over and that history doesn't matter. Yet that's precisely what the "science stopper" argument does -- it ignores its own a priori philosophical assumptions and actually stops historical inquiry as if the past doesn't matter. It, in effect, loosens science from its logical moorings and strips it from all historical context, making it into little more than an ideological tool for a dogmatic methodological naturalism (MN).

Let's address the philosophical side of the argument first. Before we can decide whether or not ID is a science "stopper," we have to be clear about what precisely is being stopped. What Eugenie Scott and others who make this argument are actually claiming is that scientists must invoke only natural causes functioning through natural laws in thoroughly non-teleological ways. Thus, what's being stopped is their commitment to MN. Of course the functional definition of MN given above is a view that is not itself a scientific statement.

As Bill Dembski has pointed out, "If methodological naturalism were merely a working hypothesis, maintained because it supposedly has served science well in the past, that would be one thing. . . . But methodological naturalism isn't saying that we have yet to encounter empirical evidence of design in nature but we should stay open to it in case it comes along. Rather, methodological naturalism insists that one is most logical, most scientific, if one pretends such an empirical possibility is logically impossible. Instead of holding methodological naturalism as a working hypothesis, methodological naturalists hold it as a dogma" (The Design Revolution, pp. 170-171). And that's why a "stoppage" of MN is not a stoppage of science; it's a halt to a very particular notion as to how science must be practiced.

If the "ID is a science stopper" argument rests on weak philosophical foundations, its historical underpinnings are even shakier. The leading natural philosophers (what we would call "scientists" today) of the 16th through 18th centuries, the men who established modern science as we know it -- Copernicus, Galileo, Vesalius, Harvey, Newton -- would have considered the MN dogma absurd and indeed rather peculiar. In fact, James Hannam has recently examined this issue in some detail and found that religion, far from being antagonistic or an impediment to science, was an integral part of its advance in the Western world (see my earlier ENV article on the subject).

But let's put it in more immediate terms that even the Darwin lobby can understand. Alfred Russel Wallace, the acknowledged co-discoverer of natural selection, broke with Darwin in 1869, calling upon an Overruling Intelligence to explain the special intellectual attributes of Homo sapiens. One year later he elaborated on that theme in an essay titled, "The Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man." He concluded that "the whole universe, is not merely dependent on, but actually is, the will of higher intelligences or of one Supreme Intelligence." For Wallace, evolution was a fact but it was teleological and detectably designed; he would spend a good deal of the remainder of his long life explicating the nature of that intelligent evolution.

Now according to Eugenie Scott's own statement, Wallace should have from 1869/70 on "stopped looking" for explanations for natural phenomena. In fact, Scott implies that once ID is accepted all interest and curiosity in the natural world should concomitantly wane. This, however, was surely not the case for Wallace. His two-volume Geographical Distribution of Animals (1876) is considered the seminal work in modern biogeography. According to biographer Ross Slotten it served as the definitive text on the subject for the next eighty years (The Heretic in Darwin's Court, p. 325).

Just two years later Wallace released Tropical Nature and Other Essays, whose prescient concern for the sustainability of fragile ecosystems Slotten correctly calls "the spiritual forerunner of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring" (p. 352). Wallace's Island Life (1880) was something of a companion volume to his Geographical Distribution book. The alternative title gives an accurate summary of its contents: The Phenomena and Causes of Insular Faunas and Floras, Including a Revision and Attempted Solution of the Problem of Geological Climates. Darwin considered it Wallace's best book, and historian Martin Fichman has accurately observed that "Wallace's contributions to the late-19th- and early-20th-century debates regarding causal mechanisms for observed distributional patterns [the essence of biogeography] retain their profound historical significance" (An Elusive Victorian, p. 60). So precisely what science did Wallace's adherence to ID stop?

The Darwin lobbyists who want to berate ID as a "science stopper" dangerous to our children's education are actually serving up some very bad medicine. It is a heaping dose of bad philosophy made palatable only through the historical ignorance of the patient asked to swallow it. In the end those who purvey the "ID is a science stopper" argument are not interested in protecting science but rather their own view of what science should be. That, of course, is not education at all. It is indoctrination

From here:


IDiots spend shitloads of time bashing evolution, Darwin, Darwinism, "High Priestess of the Darwinian faithful Eugenie Scott", "Darwinian faithful", "Darwin's most devoted followers", "dogmatic methodological naturalism", "the Darwin lobby", "The Darwin lobbyists", etc.

They constantly bitch about all those things and science in general too. Now, why do they do that? What's their point? What do they want to accomplish? What do they think all that bitching is going to change?

Hey flannery, what's stopping you or any other IDiot from showing that ID is a valid theory/inference? What's stopping you or any other IDiot from doing the research, evidence gathering, and experiments that you think will verify ID? Instead of you and the other IDiots bitching all of the time, and writing endless posts about how bad evolution, Darwin, Darwinism, Darwinists, "High Priestess of the Darwinian faithful Eugenie Scott", "Darwinian faithful", "Darwin's most devoted followers", "dogmatic methodological naturalism", "the Darwin lobby", "The Darwin lobbyists", etc. are, why aren't any of you out in nature finding evidence to prove ID (if you think you can that is)?

In all of the time and effort you IDiots have spent bashing science, Darwin, evolution, etc., and with even a small portion of the money given and spent within religions, you could actually be looking for positive, scientifically verifiable evidence for your so-called theory/inference, assuming of course that there's anything positive to find and verify.

The way you IDiots whine and cry makes it sound like you're somehow blocked from doing your own research, evidence gathering, and experiments! Nobody is blocking or stopping you!

What you expect is for ALL of science to drop everything else and just cater to whatever it is that you think it should be doing, and of course what you want it to do is accept and promote christianity and all of its ridiculous fairy tales. What makes you think that science should do your work and promotion for you? If you want to verfiy and promote a theory/inference, do your own research, evidence gathering, experiments, and promotion! You know as well as I do though, that you can't verify a damn thing about your so-called theory/inference. It's all based on imaginary religious bullshit. You IDiots want and expect science and the world to accept it and promote it on just your delusional and arrogant say-so.

You IDiots are the ones with the "a priori philosophical assumptions", and no evidence or verification whatsoever of your IDiotic religious claims.

By the way, is it 'christian' of you to bash Eugenie Scott and other people?

The word "indoctrination" coming from someone like you is hilarious. If it were up to godbots like you, everyone on Earth would be an indoctrinated religious zombie, and of course they would be indoctrinated in your particular religious beliefs.

Oh, and this is 2011. Copernicus, Galileo, Vesalius, Harvey, and Newton are dead. It's one thing to give them credit for what they did in their times, but quite another to think or assert that they should determine how science is done now.

Looks designed to me, therefor god and jesus (IDiot extrapolation)

joe g. the IDiot says:

Extrapolation and the Design Inference
The design inference in a nutshell:

Every time we observe X (be that CSI or IC) and know the cause it has always been via agency involvement. Always. Meaning there has never been an observed instance of X (be that CSI or IC) arising spontaneously, ie without agency invlovement. Never.

Therefor when we observe X (be that CSI or IC) and don't know the cause we can infer, due to our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism, that an agency was involved.

True the usual evotardgasm is "Man (humans) are the only agency we know of that produces X (be that CSI or IC)", but that is the point of extrapolation.

Ya see if we have already determined design and we also have determined that man (humans) could not be the agency, then we infer it was some other agency-> extrapolation.

So simple my eight year old understands it...


joe-boi, precisely define the C, S, and I in CSI, and then define the I and C in IC. Do it in a way that can be tested scientifically, on any actual organism, by anyone who wants to do so. In fact, why don't you do it in a way that an "eight year old understands it"?

Oh yeah, define "X" too, and exactly how "we" can "observe" it, and how it's related to "uniformitarianism".

While you're at it, let's see you calculate the "CSI" in a banana.

Saturday, August 20, 2011

To the people on ATBC

I've got to say that you guys and gals really crack me up. Most of you because of your clever comments, but then there's the dipshit Ftk who cracks me up for a different reason. I laugh AT her because of her massive ignorance.

Ftk (from ATBC)

Ftk, I can see why you get so much shit on ATBC. You deserve it. You're as fucked up as anyone on UD. And if you really think that the IDiots on UD aren't a malicious pack of slobbering, chronic liars, then you need to get your head examined (which would be a good idea regardless).

kairosfocus likes to use the word "willful" when describing what he erroneously and arrogantly perceives as the wrongful words or actions of others. Well, kairosfocus (gordon e. mullings) and all the other IDiots are "willful" in their lies, distortions, ignorance, deceit, false accusations, dishonest denials, misrepresentations, insults, attacks, and other wrongful words or actions. They know or should know that they are just a bunch of religious, narcissistic, reality hating/fearing loons who make shit up as they go along. You fit right in with them.

Thursday, August 18, 2011


August 18, 2011 at 4:27 pm

I just love how “thinking scientifically” is seen to be a replacement for thinking logically.

I’d wager that this Venema has an incoherent worldview.


mung, you never do think, at all. You just belch your usual IDiotic bile.

Speaking of "incoherent", what's your worldview? The imaginary sky daddy christian god did it?

More two faced crap from gordo

gordo puked: "When one sees the sort of willful distortion Mr Brayton indulges in defiance of duties of care to fairness and accuracy, one is reminded of Wiki’s testimony against interest: ............."

Hey gordo, I thought you said over and over that Wiki can't be trusted for information/definitions? Why are you relying on Wiki then?

You're the one spewing willful distortions, continuing misrepresentations, and blatant lies, in all kinds of ways.

Hey Erasmus

"in that picture"

What picture of joe g (joseph) are you referring to and where can I see it? Thanks.

Lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies lies
kairosfocusAugust 18, 2011 at 7:49 am


The above shows how Dr Bot is not being serious in any way worth a further discussion.

I speak for record.

I pointed out above in outline again the specific reason for inferring on FSCI to intelligence. Dr Bot’s dismissal attempt was to say this was to humans not to intelligence. I pointed out the reason why I draw the distinction, with evidence. He then accuses of circularity, failing to address evidence. For just one aspect, what part of say a beaver making a dam adapted to the particular trees and location is human? Or, since when do we infer to “human” instead of computer engineer when we see the functionally specific complex organisation and information in a computer? For that matter, when I pointed to the prospect of artificially intelligent machines, such as R Daneel Olivaw, as illustrating how non-human intelligences on say the Smith Cybernetic model, could be developed, what did that show but that I am — and have long been — open to other cases?

The first suffices to show that we have observed cases of relevant non-human intelligence building entities that exhibit FSCO/I, and the second to show that merely being human does not equip one to do particular instances of design. the third, where I point to an architecture that opens up a whole world of possibilities, and conceptual possibilities, shows that I am open to different architectures of intelligence.

So, “human” and intelligent designer cannot be equivalent.

The accusation of circularity on inferring inductively from tested, reliable signs of intelligence to intelligence as their most credible cause, through trying to substitute “human” for “intelligent,” is therefore absurd on its face.

Failure to respond seriously shows that the intent is to ridicule and dismiss, not to seriously deal with serious matters, that for instance impinge on whether soul/mind is real and independent of matter.

He also tried a straight unwarranted turnabout to my highlighting a common uncivil rhetorical pattern [and remember I am currently dealing with a case where this has now amounted to making threats against my family]. When I pointed out that he was making unwarranted accusations in an obvious turnabout, which is atmosphere-poisoning, instead of dealing with matters on the merits, he tried another round of unwarranted accusation.

Sorry, this is going nowhere where reasonable people want to go.

And, Dr Bot the above is a sorry record that you have made; please, please, please do better than that.

Good day.


From this thread:


You speak for "record"? Is that supposed to impress anyone? Is there some official "record" that some panel of angels is keeping that will be checked when determining who gets into heaven, and who goes to hell? Is this so called "record" something that you imagine in your delusional pea brain that makes you feel as though you actually have importance? Is it, along with the rest of your pomposity, just a bloviating talking point that means absolutely nothing? I already know the answers.

Nothing you say, gordo, is "worth" a "discussion", and nothing you say is going where reasonable people want to go. Everything you have ever said is "a sorry record that you have made", and you should take your extremely arrogant "do better than that" spewage and shove it up your butthole. You're NOT the arbiter of what's right or wrong. You're just a braindead ineffective blowhard.

Speaking of poisoning the atmosphere, every word that comes out of your slobbering, diseased, lying mouth is poison. "I am currently dealing with a case where this has now amounted to making threats against my family". Really gordo? Let's see your evidence? Show the alleged "threats". Exactly what are you doing to 'deal' with them? Do you have Interpol, the FBI, and the Jamaican Constabulary Force working on the case? How about Chief Inspector Clouseau? Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson? Poirot? Is an arrest imminent? Will federal marshals and swat teams be showing up at my door soon?

You are really, really, really fucked up gordo. Really.

barb the IDiot said it

"True science lives or dies on the evidence, not on the personal feelings or beliefs of the scientist(s)."

In comment number 2 here:

Yeah, barb, that's true. Trouble is, you IDiots NEVER apply those words to yourselves. The only thing you have is personal feelings and beliefs. You have NO evidence. Your ID claims are “Vacuous”.

Huh?? What??

gordo drooled:

"Further point: I forgot to note, above that if we for instance come across a car or a computer or a copy of Libre Office, we do not infer to “human” but to skilled, knowledgeable intelligent designer. Embodiment in a human body plainly does not define the matter."

Uh, yeah, gordo, whenever I see a car or a computer or computer program (like Libre Office) I never think of human designers, and I don't infer that stuff to human designers. I always think of and infer the sky daddy christian god, or a beaver.


And hey, gordo, didn't you say you rested your case? Then why are you still blabbering?

His whole post:
August 18, 2011 at 6:02 am

Further point: I forgot to note, above that if we for instance come across a car or a computer or a copy of Libre Office, we do not infer to “human” but to skilled, knowledgeable intelligent designer. Embodiment in a human body plainly does not define the matter. Indeed, I have said several times here at UD that if we are credibly designed intelligences ourselves per the testimony of our cells, I see no reason why we cannot in turn be such designers of intelligences, once we crack the techniques. So, I have repeatedly spoken in terms of R Daneel Olivaw, of Asimov’s series. I take the Derek Smith two-tier controller model seriously, and see no reason why we should not be able to create a software supervisory controller that would to at least a significant degree be artificially intelligent. Such may well not be conscious [though I suspect sophisticated control looping, projective, proprioception and memory techniques may well give a passable imitation of that], but it might be intelligent enough to be creative.

From here:

Jementuous slubberdegullion (gordon e. mullings)

gordo, your resort to a turnabout and manifestly false, mocking dismissal of reality and truth, is duly noted as a further descent on tone, sanity, and logic. For the record, of course. The record that shows you as a narcissistic, sanctimonious dickhead.

"astute" onlookers have long ago figured out that you're just a bloviating asshole with delusions of godhood.

Do better than that. You have been corrected hundreds of times, yet you persist in your drumbeat repetition of rhetorical talking points, strawmen, red herrings, and ad hominems laced with the oil of your lies, pomposity, insanity, and total bullshit.

You're a menace to society, and one of the most arrogant, dishonest, amoral blowhards the world has ever had the misfortune to suffer.

Rest your case? That's a laugh. You'll go on and on and on with the lies, superiority complex, and total ignorance of science that you've always exuded.


Keybord still broken

In the mentime, check these out:

Monday, August 15, 2011

Very interesting

Thnks gordy...

...for providing n rgument tht helps support the ToE.

(My keybord is messed up so there's letter missing in some words).

Here's gordo's rgument:

August 15, 2011 at 8:44 am

Dr Liddle

Have you ever seen how a natural fibre rope is made up from weak, short strands twisted to form long strands, counter-twisted to form a long, strong rope?

It is a fallacy of composition to infer form the weakness of the component to the weakness of the whole, particularly when we deal with a cumulative and significantly inductive case where we must exert consistent standards in warrant.

What is needed is to see how, like the fibres and strands of a rope, the various components interact. If they do so in an appropriate way, the whole can indeed be far stronger than you would expect from the components in isolation.

I therefore suggest you spend a few moments here, which addresses the very question.



The ToE is mde up of strnds (components) nd you IDiots ttck every strnd (component) tht you think is wek. You pounce on every little thing tht you think flsifies the whole ToE. You morons re constntly climing tht the ToE is completely flse just becuse you think tht one component is wek. On the other hnd, you hve NO evidence for your clims. Your evidence isn't wek, it's nonexistent. You hve no strnds or rope. You hve delusions nd bullshit.

gordo's rgument cn be used ginst ll of the ssertions from IDiots who sy tht some prts of the Toe re wek. Remind them (nd him) of his words whenever you see them (or him) ttcking ny strnd (component) of evolutionry theory.

You know, it's interesting tht my broken keybord seems to be helping me mke my point. There's strnd (letter) missing from mny words in this post, but this post still exists, cn still be understood, nd is still vlid.

Too much LSD?

junkdnaforlifeAugust 15, 2011 at 3:15 am

Cannuck: “He’s more disciplined than they, and Polly perhaps sensed that she needs to hone up on her intellectual skills before facing someone like Craig.”

True. What Polly and the rest of the atheists need to do is actually develop an argument that is better than WLC’s. The fact that the entire worldwide intellectual atheist community cannot collectively introduce a more powerful argument is very telling of the state of atheist so-called reason. Once Craig establishes that God is more likely than not, the Christian argument steps up. And atheists are forced to come up with a model that fits the data-a counter-argument that better explains ALL the singular phenomenon attributed to Christianity. The mental gymnastics involved is striking and thus far a sufficient counter with more explanatory power has failed to develop. However, a singular point once introduced simplifies the entire equation, seamlessly fitting the data together into an elegant Truth: Simply Jesus was what He said He was.


Hey junk, I would glady debate craig or you or any other IDiot, anytime. It would be like shooting dead fish in a barrel. When the assertions made by someone are all lies and fairy tales, what's so hard about debating them? Laughing and mockery are the best responses to what you IDiots assert. None of the claims you morons assert are really worth debating seriously. It would be like debating the plot in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

Frankly, I don't understand why anyone even bothers to debate anything seriously with you dullards. Making fun of you and pointing out your lies, hypocrisy, arrogance, paranoia, cowardice, insanity, stupidity, and lack of education is all that you deserve.

christianity has explanatory power of the data? craig establishes that god is more likely than not? ROFLMAO!! That's hilarious!

Let's see you prove that the guy you call "Jesus" ever existed. Have you got his bones handy? A DNA sample? A photograph or video? Anything besides delusional fairy tales?